Author Topic: The Red Record  (Read 242481 times)

BuboAhab

  • Guest
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #315 on: August 08, 2009, 02:15:23 am »
Ed you have not shown one example of a carbon date that is backed up by verifiable carbon dating companies, so why are you "pretty sure" that they are legitimate or complete?. Should we all take your word for it like a lemming?

Giving Partial or Selective evidence is one problem (which means selecting only the data that matches the intended results).  The second problem is the sample size is insufficient to draw any conclusions. Less than 5 % of the site has been excavated, leaving more than 95% chance for error.

"Further, they usually place their artifacts into the context of artifacts/cultures from other sites which are well dated."
Show me an example.

"My own thinking is that the complex at St. Louis (Mound City) was earlier than Cahokia, but then that was destroyed."
Why do you think that? Is it based on any evidence or just hear-say?

"so far you've demonstrated no way points."
Way points? What are you talking about?

"Again, with European burrows earth was usually used to cover megalithic constructions. "
Look at the example of limestone slabs in Monks Mound.

"who did this authentication work on these particular banner stones?"
Dr. Hill, of Cincinnati. first. You  can visit the Smithsonian to see them.

"We know they are authentic relics"
Who is "we"?

"the engravings on them which are questionable. The technique of modifying relics to increase their value is well known within the artifact collecting community."
Based on what modification?.

"Who found these particular items? Where did they come from? Who published them first?"
Look it up - I am not doing your research for you.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 02:25:53 am by BuboAhab »

Offline E.P. Grondine

  • Posts: 401
    • Man and Impact in the Americas
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #316 on: August 08, 2009, 03:42:11 am »
Ed you have not shown one example of a carbon date that is backed up by verifiable carbon dating companies, so why are you "pretty sure" that they are legitimate or complete?. Should we all take your word for it like a lemming?

"Further, they usually place their artifacts into the context of artifacts/cultures from other sites which are well dated."
Show me an example.

Try reading the fundamentals before you claim they do not exist. All of this was covered in "Cahokia and the Hinterlands", ed Emerson and Lewis, University of Illinois Press, 2000, including hundreds of reliable calibrated RC dates from reliable labs, summarized on page 10.

"My own thinking is that the complex at St. Louis (Mound City) was earlier than Cahokia, but then that was destroyed."
Why do you think that? Is it based on any evidence or just hear-say?

See Man and Impact in the Americas, pages 191-192 et priori.

"so far you've demonstrated no way points."
Way points? What are you talking about?

Between Beaker Culture/ Cahokia. None, Vince. No way points, no transmission route, no path.

"Again, with European burrows earth was usually used to cover megalithic constructions. "
Look at the example of limestone slabs in Monks Mound.

There's a big difference between limestone slabs and megaliths: several tons big.

"who did this authentication work on these particular banner stones?"
Dr. Hill, of Cincinnati. first. You  can visit the Smithsonian to see them.

"We know they are authentic relics"
Who is "we"?

"the engravings on them which are questionable. The technique of modifying relics to increase their value is well known within the artifact collecting community."
Based on what modification?.

Making the "inscriptions".

"Who found these particular items? Where did they come from? Who published them first?"
Look it up - I am not doing your research for you.

Well, you're the one who brought them up. I never saw them on display at the Smithsonian. I wonder who Dr. Hill of Cincinatti was and what century he worked in, and what was his background.

Vince, you asked me for the data on Cahokia, and I gave it to you. You asked me why I formed my opinion on the Saint Louis complex, and I told you where it is in my book - and you have a copy of it.

Giving Partial or Selective evidence is one problem (which means selecting only the data that matches the intended results).

Yes it sure is.

The second problem is the sample size is insufficient to draw any conclusions. Less than 5 % of the site has been excavated, leaving more than 95% chance for error.

Vince, until you come up with evidence of either some way points, or some explanation for a thousand year time differential, your hypothesis is, ahem, "unlikely".

Demanding that the other 95% of the site be excavated to prove you are wrong is not likely to happen either.


BuboAhab

  • Guest
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #317 on: August 08, 2009, 01:04:23 pm »
Ed, ahem, you should try reading the source that you sent again, and show me where it says "Hundreds of carbon dates" were taken.

Actually the chart that you referred to clearly states "assigned and suggested new phase chronologies for the Mississippian period in the American Bottom, Illinois" So the carbon dates shown are only for the "Mississippian Period" - leaving out any periods from prior or after that shown.  And you still have not shown the backing paperwork.

Assuming the dates on that graph are correct - they are based entirely on Robert Hull's purported 22 carbon dates in a single subfeature of mound 72. Why report only one subfeature? Why not date the beaded burial.  Was the subfeature  an intrusive feature added several thousand years after the rest of the activiites?

Actually the skeletons were badly deteriorated in Mound 72 and could not be carbon dated (bones were crushed down to 1/2 the original thickness) and excavations were inundated with water. The gender and age determination was nearly impossible. "inaccuracies involved in demographic determination necessitates that analysis be done with extreme caution. Analysis of the paleopathology of fragmentary skeletal material is difficult and inaccurate due to differential preservation of healthy bone. ..Because of the fragmentary nature of the Cahokia Skeletons, the accuracy of the pathological analysis is in doubt. Analysis of the skeletons was severely hampered by the poor bone preservation due to a variety of causes." Only a few (of 250+) were removed intact.

Why were archaic points found embedded in the leg bones of skeletons buried with Cahokia Points? this is only a small part of the picture. I give the entire chronology curve on my historyofmonksmound website, complete with waypoints.

See for the bannerstones with engravings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10108406/The-Banner-Stone-Conundrum
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 01:08:32 pm by BuboAhab »

Offline E.P. Grondine

  • Posts: 401
    • Man and Impact in the Americas
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #318 on: August 08, 2009, 03:48:33 pm »
Ed, ahem, you should try reading the source that you sent again, and show me where it says "Hundreds of carbon dates" were taken.

Vincent, it appears that you are simply ignoring every RC date from Cahokia that does not accord with your hypothesis - see Cahokia and the Hinterlands, pages 8,9,14, 234 and the index on 354 for surrounding sites - there were goods coming in and going out from Cahokia. There are literally hundreds of radio-carbon dates given.

See for the bannerstones with engravings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10108406/The-Banner-Stone-Conundrum

From its iconography, the Welch butterfly is pretty clearly a fake which was planted. The dress of the people shown is from the late 1800's, when it was engraved. Your dating of 4300 BCE for it is not supported by any data.

I am looking through your site for your waypoints, and have not found them yet.

Another problem that you have is the lack of De Soto artifacts at Cahokia.
If you differ from Hudson's route, then you're going to have to demonstrate appropriate cities at all the locations the chronicles mention.



« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 04:23:05 pm by E.P. Grondine »

Offline E.P. Grondine

  • Posts: 401
    • Man and Impact in the Americas
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #319 on: August 08, 2009, 05:44:40 pm »
Vince -

From your site:

"An early Chalcolithic culture at Cahokia was discovered when thousands of microblades along with copper workshop evidence were reported by Gregory Perino.  The discovery of micro lithic technology along with copper manufacturing workshops equates to chalcolithic presence at the Cahokia Mounds.  Chalcolithic technology generally falls into the time period toward the end of the Neolithic period is supported by the presence of black and red pottery styles.  Microlithic technology was present beginning in Upper Paleolithic periods and this trait existed until Woodland times.  The majority of microlithic and copper evidence seems to occur around the third to the second millennium BC throughout the world.  As stated by Clarence Webb in “The extent and Content of the Poverty Point Culture”:

""The two long-lasting microblade traditions in the New World are in the far north and Mesoamerica. The Northwest Microblade tradition is estimated by MacNeish (Willey 1966: 415) to have begun about 6000 B.C. The Arctic Small Tool tradition, starting at 4000-3000 B.C., spread from Alaska to Greenland and lasted until about 500 B.C. In Mesoamerica, the Tehuacin Valley sequence showed obsidian blades struck from prepared polyhedral cores in the Abejas phase, dated by MacNeish (1962) at 3400-2300 B.C. Willey (1966: 83) states "this common little instrument was to become one of the most persistent of the Mesoamerican technological traditions." In view of the probable advent of other Mesoamerican traits into the Mississippi Valley in Poverty Point times, a Mesoamerican origin for the microflint industry seems appropriate. One can only conjecture why this tool maintained its popularity only through Poverty Point and Hopewell times."

Okay, let's see: at this point you have B mt DNA from South America/ Central America along with microliths, and copper coming down from the Lake Superior region. That is not the "chalcolithic" culture you posit:
"The Chalcolithic period corresponds with the beginning of the most major increase in projectile point production. This reaches its peak at the late archaic (Bronze Age).  In the late Archaic, the greatest quantity of projectile points was made."

The following does not hold:

"A more realistic approach is working with more than one million laborers during the Chalcolithic copper age, each relaying the earthen construction materials over a highly refined tribute network in one season."

You can pitch the one season. What you probably have there at Cahokia is multiple mounds, each succeeding mound incorporating the earlier one. For that matter nearby earlier mounds could have been re-used to build the later ones.

You have to remember that colored earths would only have been a "veneer", and you have left out canoe transport of them. And they could have been re-used as well.

Aside from isolated items, the main trade routes for lake superior copper did not extend down the Mississippi River until that peak in lithics that you show after 1,000 BCE. Note its decline as well.

Now I understand why you were taken in by the Burrow's frauds: for you they evidence a vast copper trade running down the Mississippi River, one controlled from Cahokia.

But there are no way points further south on the Mississippi River.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas


« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 05:56:15 pm by E.P. Grondine »

BuboAhab

  • Guest
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #320 on: August 08, 2009, 10:17:17 pm »
 The text that you have cited does not show "literally hundreds" of dates.  on the contrary, it does show a staging for the Partial data that only relates to the Mississippian period. Thus enlies is the problem, and this is presented by merely extracing only data that falls within the "accepted" range of "mississippian" era. Your page numbers cited only present a partial data. It even clears up how this decision was made to do this: "a timescale at the 1971 conference". Thus you would have us ignore all the data to the contrary, continue on like a lemming, and do not ever consider any evidence. Ed, You either did not bother to read the book with any comprehension or you cannot be trusted.
 
Ed, you are also wrong about the Welch butterfly. It is not fake, it is real as the four winds.

The dress is entirely unlike people in the late 1800's, and is shown in similar shell spiro engravings.

The  dating of 4300 BCE for it is shown in the Harvey's Bannerstones: A Native American Art tradition. .

Even the best data is not able to show the exact route of DeSoto or his army. There is a description in his journal that he did arrive at Cahokia, as I have shown. There is a lot of scrap brass fragments, large glass beads, and other metallic objects found on monks mound. Also a painting from the 16th century that depicts DeSoto and his men in front of Monks Mound.

Ed, we will talk when you can present some data to support your partial view.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 02:46:38 am by BuboAhab »

Offline E.P. Grondine

  • Posts: 401
    • Man and Impact in the Americas
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #321 on: August 09, 2009, 03:44:06 am »
The text that you have cited does not show "literally hundreds" of dates.

Yes it does, and as anyone can pick up a copy of it and read it for themselves, why claim otherwise?

on the contrary, it does show a staging for the Partial data that only relates to the Mississippian period.
Thus enlies is the problem, and this is presented by merely extracing only data that falls within the "accepted" range of "mississippian" era. Your page numbers cited only present a partial data. It even clears up how this decision was made to do this: "a timescale at the 1971 conference". Thus you would have us ignore all the data to the contrary, continue on like a lemming, and do not ever consider any evidence. Ed, You either did not bother to read the book with any comprehension or you cannot be trusted.

Vince, I wrote about the comet impacts that killed the mammoth some 4 years before Firestone and Kennett published. If the copper trade had of gone down the Mississippi River I would have had no problem with detailing it.

But it didn't. The Andaste copper traders are remembered by the Menominee, Ho-chunk (Hotcegea), Ojibwe, Wendat, Five Nations, Shawnee, Cherokee, and the first English colonists. Their artifacts and sites are as I set out in "Man and Impact in the Americas".

While the lithic frequency chart you cite is interesting, and your citation of micro blades and copper working, given that the Welsh butterfly is a fraud, and the Burrow's objects are frauds, I'd have to re-examine your citations of them in depth to assure myself that they were legitimate.
 
Ed, you are also wrong about the Welch butterfly. It is not fake, it is real as the four winds.

Oh, its a real fake alright. Anyone can tell by looking at the iconography, which dates from 1879.

The dress is entirely unlike people in the late 1800's, and is shown in similar shell spiro engravings.

Let's see - on the one side a woman in 19th century representation of classical greco-roman dress, on the other a 19th century representation of a medieval representation of roman dress.

The  dating of 4300 BCE for it is shown in the Harvey's Bannerstones: A Native American Art tradition.

When the original was done is one thing, when the engravings added another.
Again, without further citation, I'll simply state that it appears to me to be a fraud. One problem here, as with Burrow's objects, is that the frauds are so obvious that no serious scientist will waste their time with them. Otherwise, high power microscopic examination of the tool markings would immediately reveal them as frauds.

Others may take a look and form their own opinion.

Even the best data is not able to show the exact route of DeSoto or his army.

Hudson and his colleagues disagree.

There is a description in his journal that he did arrive at Cahokia, as I have shown. There is a lot of scrap brass fragments, large glass beads, and other metallic objects found on monks mound. Also a painting from the 16th century that depicts DeSoto and his men in front of Monks Mound.

Your reading, Vince. Your identification of Kaskaskia was tempting, but once again, you have to trace the whole route back from Cahokia and Kaskaskia to Burnt Corn Alabama, the site of the battle with the Mauvila.

Ed, we will talk when you can present some data to support your partial view.

You own my book. Read it. The copper traders are detailed in it, as are their routes to the Atlantic Ocean.

Your copper trading empire running through Cahokia is a figment of your imagination, Vince. There are no other early copper sites on the Mississippi River. Show me several of them and we'll talk.

In other words, trace the copper down from Isle Royale to the mouth of the Mississippi River and we'll talk.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 04:11:07 pm by E.P. Grondine »


Offline E.P. Grondine

  • Posts: 401
    • Man and Impact in the Americas
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #323 on: August 10, 2009, 06:16:32 am »
Hi Vince, Lori

Cahokia was a major copper trading center...

In Mississippian times, but small compared to Etowah. Why?
Because "Hopewell" and "Mississippian" copper nearly all came from
Copper Hill, Tennessee.

I see from your wife Lori's paper that she knows nothing of this copper source either.

Mississippian is several thousand years different than your "Chalcolithic", Vince.

The same goes for the published Poverty Point claims of Lake Superior copper, which is strange as they document other trade goods from the Copper Hill, Tennesee area. You have multiple site reports from "Hopewell" sites where they claim Lake Superior copper, without spectral analysis.

In sum, all copper did not come from the Lake Superior region.

and the Welch butterfly is authentic.

Like I said Vince, if they ever bother to put the Welsh Butterfly under a high power microscope, the tool marks will show it to be a fraud. Same as will happen to Burrow's frauds.

Hudson and his colleagues admit his map is but one interpretation of DeSoto's route.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/DeSoto/?action=view&current=Image0069.jpg

Drawing a series of lines through Mississippian sites is not sufficient, Vince.

You have to match your route to Cahokia with the marches/distances described in the chronicles. While I do find it strange that no major Mississippian complex has been documented at Harrisburg, that does not change Burrow's fraud. Again, we have descriptions of Mississippian ancestor shrines, and they were above ground.

Most of this would more properly be under the head of the Burrow's Cave fraud instead of under the Walam Olum.

In closing this exchange, I thank you for your images of the gorgets from Piqua, and your citation of their finding. IMO, they are real, and likely to be Lenape,  but we'll see.





BuboAhab

  • Guest
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #324 on: August 11, 2009, 02:08:23 am »
Ed,

Your comments are foolish because Lori is NOT my wife!!!   However, Lori shows in her presentation native copper use in southern Illinois dating to 3,000 BC and this is the correct date.  Cahokia chronology that is proposed by your sources does not acknowledge or include this valuable information.  

The copper used at Cahokia was matched to the type from upper michigan.

Your conjecture about the engravings on the Welch Butterfly unfortunately cannot be disproven or proven. The piece at the Smithsonian is only a plaster cast of the original Banded Slate artifact. The original banded slate example is unknown and may be in someones collection.

Your claim about the DeSoto map also falls short, for the photo that i have shown is actually source material used by Hudson and His associates to map DeSoto's route. The Green dots are the locations of Spanish artifacts.

This time frame is called Chalcolithic - and the similarities between Iberian Peninsula stone work, and that of Northern India are noted by a broad study of world archaeology. As such, birchbark scrolls were also found among both cultures, and relavent because microblades were probably used to incise the birchbark. Microblades at Cahokia were found with copper workshop evidence and this lithic chronology has not been included in your source.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Erb%20and%20Mathews%20collections/Microblade%20Core/

Further Documentation of "Old-world and New-world" Microblade Chronology:
The gap between this upper palaeolithic and the neolithic-chalcolithic cultures has
now been bridged in some regions such as Uttar Pradesh, Karnatak and SE. Rajasthan
by microlithic cultures, for which we have dates ranging from 8000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. There
is no doubt that in some parts of India microlithic cultures continued to flourish side by
side with other advanced cultures (Misra 1971).
(Prehistoric colonization of India)

The Ahar culture, as revealed by the excavations at Ahar, has been found to be a purely
copper-using culture (I.A.R. 1961-2: 50). At Gilund (Rajasthan), however, a few microliths
were found associated with this culture (I.A.R. 1959-60: 41).
Ahar Culture (1700-1500 BC)
(New Light on the Prehistoric Cultures of Central India)

At most of the excavated sites of the Upper Gangetic Valley the Ochre Coloured
Pottery is succeeded by the Painted Grey Ware but at two of them, Atranjikhera 6,
and Noh '), an ill-defined Black-and-Red Ware horizon is interposed between
these two levels. Nothing is known about the cultural identity of this Black-and-Red
Ware except that it XI-as associated at Atranjikhera with "microlithic cores and copper."
A clear appraisal must await fuller investigation
(Prehistoric Ganges)

While a wide variety of microlithic implements along with a more or less extensive use of Copper
form the basic technological ingredient, the primary crop cultivated was rice.
There was a wide assortment of plain and painted wheelmade wares among which a
Black-and-Red Ware formed the dominant element. This Black-and-Red Ware
has been discovered as far as Rajghat l) and Sohgaura 2, in East U.P. The C-14 dates
suggest a beginning around I roo B.C. 3). The origin is obscure but there is little
evidence for a migration of the chalcolithic elements from South-east Rajasthan,
Central India or Deccan. This chalcolithic level gradually merged into an iron-using
stage around 700 B.C. 4). This aspect of the gradual merger between the chalcolithic
and iron-using stages is clear from the sequences of Chirand and Mahisdal where
chalcolithic elements including pottery and microlithic tools continue significantly
in the iron-using level. Early historic period began, as in the Upper Gangetic Valley,
in the sixth century B.C.
(Prehistoric Ganges)

The technological traditions of the Franco-Iberian
Solutrean were firmly rooted in those of the
Gravettian (middle Upper Paleolithic) of western
Europe. Depending on the local availability and quality
of lithic raw materials, as well as on site function,
blanks used for making stone implements were
flakes, blades, and bladelets ("micro-blades" in
American terminology), although the Solutrean leaf,
shouldered, and stemmed points were usually made
on blades often produced from diverse specific forms
of prismatic cores. The hallmark of Solutrean lithic
technology is indeed its projectile component, consisting
of both a variety of single-element tips (of
widely varying sizes and weights, including many
"laurel leaves" that may actually have been used as
knives) and (especially in later Solutrean contexts)
backed bladelets that were used multiply as barbs
and/ or tips of projectiles, whose other elements were
basally beveled antler points.
(soulterian)

Microblades, tanged and
shouldered points-all common in various Solutrean
assemblages-are absent in the far more limited technological
repertoire of Clovis. While there are superficial
similarities (e.g., some concave base foliate
projectile points, some organic points or foreshafts
with anti-skid engraved lines on basal bevels), these
are most parsimoniously explainable as independent
developments-similar solutions to similar functional
problems, given limited available lithic and
osseous materials and manufacturing techniques.
The fact that red ochre was used by people in both
techno-complexes-as cited by Stanford-is meaningless,
as such pigment use is virtually a cultural
universal among Homo sapiens foragers worldwide.
(Soulterian)

The creativity of the Solutrean extended
beyond the "arms race" that is attested by the plethora
of lithic and antler point sizes and types (and even
224 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 20001
backed micro-blade elements) and by the invention
of the spearthrower.
(souterian)

Yet such pieces in the Solutrean are
found only at a handful of sites in a small area of
northern Spain-not in France or in the rest of Iberia.
Nor are the Solutrean points fluted, a feature which
is absolutely diagnostic of Clovis points. Shouldered
and stemmed points, as well as micro-blades, all so
common in the Solutrean, are completely absent
from the Clovis lithic repertory. And beveled antler
points (or foreshafts), common in the Solutrean, are
very rare in Clovis.
(soulerian)

The microliths
are consistently found in association with pottery and bifacially
worked projectile points of the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic of the third and second millennia B.C.
(USSR)

The above observations as well as data from
I. V. Sinitsyn's excavations on the Volga (Berezhnov
I1 cemetery), from those on the left bank
of the Dniepr (Bader 1950), and in Crimea
(Krainov 1957), indicate a persistence of microlithic
technology as late as the age of metal,
allowing us to place microlithic sites in Asia as
being Chalcolithic. Pottery found with microliths
in Dzhanbas-Kala, Dzhebel Cave, and a
series of eroded sites enables us to date microlithic
sites in Kazakhstan and Central Asia in
the main to the third and early second millennia
B.C. This same chronological placement is
indicated by the type of bifacially retouched
projectile points-the triangular point with an
indentation in the base. Points of this type are
common in the third and second millennia B.C.
and possibly were manufactured as early as the
end of the fourth millennium.
(USSR)

Triangular Points of this type were found at Cahokia Mounds in abundance.

The excavations of I. V.
Sinitsyn in the Berezhnov I1 cemetery definitely
linked the microlithic cultures of the lower
Volga with the Yamno cultures of the third
millennium B.C. Here in Kurgan (burial
mound) 9, with Burials 3, 5, 9, and 17 were
found two microblades, three end-scrapers
made on blades, three rounded microscrapers,
a composite tool, and two other artifacts quite
usual in lower Volg-a sites. Thus, in the third
millennium B.C. geometric tools were still being
produced in the lower reaches of the Volga.
(USSR)

The Introduction
of microblades is now seen as a regional tradition
lasting from at least 1200 B.C. until around A.D. 400.
(Microblades)

Microblades and cores were next reported
from the top horizon of DjRi3 in the Fraser Canyon,
but the relation of these objects to the
radiocarbon date given for the horizon, 410 B.C.
60 (S-112), is not made clear (Borden 1961:
1). (Microblades)

As Table 1 indicates, date estimates for assemblages,
including microblades or cores, range
from 1210 B.C. 2 130 (GSC437) as the earliest
to A.D. 370 f 140 (S-19) as the most recent.
(Microblades)

New World are in the
far north and Mesoamerica. The Northwest
Microblade tradition is estimated by MacNeish
(Willey 1966: 415) to have begun about 6000
B.C. The Arctic Small Tool tradition, starting at
4000-3000 B.c., spread from Alaska to Greenland
and lasted until about 500 B.C. In Mesoamerica,
the Tehuacin Valley sequence showed
obsidian blades struck from prepared polyhedral
cores in the Abejas phase, dated by MacNeish
(1962) at 3400-2300 B.C. Willey (1966: 83)
states "this common little instrument was to
become one of the most persistent of the Mesoamerican
technological traditions." In view of
the probable advenr of other Mesoamerican
traits into the Mississippi Valley in Poverty
Point times, a Mesoamerican origin for the
microflint industry seemq appropriate. One can
only conjecture why this tool maintained its
popularity only through Poverty Point and
Hopewell times.
(poverty Point)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 02:07:31 pm by BuboAhab »

Offline E.P. Grondine

  • Posts: 401
    • Man and Impact in the Americas
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #325 on: August 12, 2009, 01:48:26 am »
Ed,
Your comments are foolish because Lori is NOT my wife!!!   However, Lori shows in her presentation native copper use in southern Illinois dating to 3,000 BC and this is the correct date.  Cahokia chronology that is proposed by your sources does not acknowledge or include this valuable information. 

The copper used at Cahokia was matched to the type from upper michigan.

My apologies to Lori; from your comments, I misunderstood your relationship with her. Does she think there was a Norse-Algonquin copper trade?

Vince, have you ever considered studying archaeology in school, or actually working on a professional excavation? I think you would be far happier if you did.

The Pennino excavation copper was sheet fragments, where sheet is the usual form from the Copper Hill, Tennessee deposits.

Your conjecture about the engravings on the Welch Butterfly unfortunately cannot be disproven or proven. The piece at the Smithsonian is only a plaster cast of the original Banded Slate artifact. The original banded slate example is unknown and may be in someones collection.

Oh, I would not be so sure about that, Vince. First off, you were the one who insisted that the Welch butterfly and not a plaster cast of it was in the Smithsonian. You would probably be very surprised to learn what can be revealed by a plaster cast.

Your claim about the DeSoto map also falls short, for the photo that i have shown is actually source material used by Hudson and His associates to map DeSoto's route. The Green dots are the locations of Spanish artifacts.

Again, Vince, the route lines are yours - it may be Hudson's artifacts, but they're your lines. The problem is that you have to show how any of your routes matches the chronicles' itineraries.

This time frame is called Chalcolithic - and the similarities between Iberian Peninsula stone work, and that of Northern India are noted by a broad study of world archaeology. As such, birchbark scrolls were also found among both cultures, and relavent because microblades were probably used to incise the birchbark. Microblades at Cahokia were found with copper workshop evidence and this lithic chronology has not been included in your source.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Erb%20and%20Mathews%20collections/Microblade%20Core/

You keep on talking about "my source". Please associate a specific point with a specific source; it makes discussion easier.

Vince, maybe someday you'll bother to talk with some mide and learn what they use to incise their birchbark scrolls. If you do meet mide, please stop talking long enough to remember to listen to what they have to say to you very very carefully, and try to remember exactly what they tell you.

Further Documentation of "Old-world and New-world" Microblade Chronology:
The gap between this upper palaeolithic and the neolithic-chalcolithic cultures has now been bridged in some regions such as Uttar Pradesh, Karnatak and SE. Rajasthan by microlithic cultures, for which we have dates ranging from 8000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. There is no doubt that in some parts of India microlithic cultures continued to flourish side by side with other advanced cultures (Misra 1971).
(Prehistoric colonization of India)

The Ahar culture, as revealed by the excavations at Ahar, has been found to be a purely copper-using culture (I.A.R. 1961-2: 50). At Gilund (Rajasthan), however, a few microliths were found associated with this culture (I.A.R. 1959-60: 41). Ahar Culture (1700-1500 BC)
(New Light on the Prehistoric Cultures of Central India)

At most of the excavated sites of the Upper Gangetic Valley the Ochre Coloured Pottery is succeeded by the Painted Grey Ware but at two of them, Atranjikhera 6, and Noh '), an ill-defined Black-and-Red Ware horizon is interposed between these two levels. Nothing is known about the cultural identity of this Black-and-Red Ware except that it XI-as associated at Atranjikhera with "microlithic cores and copper." A clear appraisal must await fuller investigation (Prehistoric Ganges)

While a wide variety of microlithic implements along with a more or less extensive use of Copper form the basic technological ingredient, the primary crop cultivated was rice. There was a wide assortment of plain and painted wheelmade wares among which a Black-and-Red Ware formed the dominant element. This Black-and-Red Ware has been discovered as far as Rajghat l) and Sohgaura 2, in East U.P. The C-14 dates suggest a beginning around I roo B.C. 3). The origin is obscure but there is little evidence for a migration of the chalcolithic elements from South-east Rajasthan, Central India or Deccan. This chalcolithic level gradually merged into an iron-using stage around 700 B.C. 4). This aspect of the gradual merger between the chalcolithic and iron-using stages is clear from the sequences of Chirand and Mahisdal where
chalcolithic elements including pottery and microlithic tools continue significantly in the iron-using level. Early historic period began, as in the Upper Gangetic Valley, in the sixth century B.C.
(Prehistoric Ganges)

Vince, you fail to mention early African microliths, and the excavation contamination dating problems for their sites, currently a hot topic, or their relationship or lack of one with Anatolian microliths. You fail to note the wide differences in dates for microliths versus microliths+copper in the sources you cite.

Your use of a OCR scanner without correcting the scans is irritating. As is your mis-use of "chalcolithic" in other contexts.

I note also your inability to organize materials along a time line.

The technological traditions of the Franco-Iberian Solutrean were firmly rooted in those of the Gravettian (middle Upper Paleolithic) of western Europe. Depending on the local availability and quality of lithic raw materials, as well as on site function, blanks used for making stone implements were flakes, blades, and bladelets ("micro-blades" in American terminology), although the Solutrean leaf, shouldered, and stemmed points were usually made on blades often produced from diverse specific forms of prismatic cores. The hallmark of Solutrean lithic technology is indeed its projectile component, consisting
of both a variety of single-element tips (of widely varying sizes and weights, including many "laurel leaves" that may actually have been used as knives) and (especially in later Solutrean contexts) backed bladelets that were used multiply as barbs and/ or tips of projectiles, whose other elements were
basally beveled antler points.
(soulterian)

Microblades, tanged and shouldered points-all common in various Solutrean
assemblages-are absent in the far more limited technological repertoire of Clovis. While there are superficial similarities (e.g., some concave base foliate
projectile points, some organic points or foreshafts with anti-skid engraved lines on basal bevels), these are most parsimoniously explainable as independent
developments-similar solutions to similar functional problems, given limited available lithic and osseous materials and manufacturing techniques.

The fact that red ochre was used by people in both techno-complexes-as cited by Stanford-is meaningless, as such pigment use is virtually a cultural
universal among Homo sapiens foragers worldwide. (Soulterian)

The creativity of the Solutrean extended beyond the "arms race" that is attested by the plethora of lithic and antler point sizes and types (and even
224 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 65, No. 2, 20001 backed micro-blade elements) and by the invention of the spearthrower. (souterian)

Yet such pieces in the Solutrean are found only at a handful of sites in a small area of northern Spain-not in France or in the rest of Iberia. Nor are the Solutrean points fluted, a feature which is absolutely diagnostic of Clovis points. Shouldered and stemmed points, as well as micro-blades, all so
common in the Solutrean, are completely absent from the Clovis lithic repertory. And beveled antler points (or foreshafts), common in the Solutrean, are
very rare in Clovis.
(soulerian)

The microliths are consistently found in association with pottery and bifacially
worked projectile points of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the third and second millennia B.C. (USSR)

The above observations as well as data from I. V. Sinitsyn's excavations on the Volga (Berezhnov I1 cemetery), from those on the left bank of the Dniepr (Bader 1950), and in Crimea (Krainov 1957), indicate a persistence of microlithic
technology as late as the age of metal, allowing us to place microlithic sites in Asia as being Chalcolithic. Pottery found with microliths in Dzhanbas-Kala, Dzhebel Cave, and a series of eroded sites enables us to date microlithic
sites in Kazakhstan and Central Asia in the main to the third and early second millennia B.C. This same chronological placement is indicated by the type of bifacially retouched projectile points-the triangular point with an
indentation in the base. Points of this type are common in the third and second millennia B.C.and possibly were manufactured as early as the end of the fourth millennium.(USSR)

Triangular Points of this type were found at Cahokia Mounds in abundance.

These authors notes on functionality dictating similarity seems to have
passed you by, as did the difference between barbs for bone tips and microliths for other uses. Note carefully the 4,000 year time difference between Cahokia and Central Asian sites.

The excavations of I. V. Sinitsyn in the Berezhnov I1 cemetery definitely
linked the microlithic cultures of the lower Volga with the Yamno cultures of the third millennium B.C. Here in Kurgan (burial mound) 9, with Burials 3, 5, 9, and 17 were found two microblades, three end-scrapers made on blades, three rounded microscrapers, a composite tool, and two other artifacts quite
usual in lower Volg-a sites. Thus, in the third millennium B.C. geometric tools were still being produced in the lower reaches of the Volga. (USSR)

The Introduction of microblades is now seen as a regional tradition
lasting from at least 1200 B.C. until around A.D. 400. (Microblades)

Microblades and cores were next reported from the top horizon of DjRi3 in the Fraser Canyon, but the relation of these objects to the radiocarbon date given for the horizon, 410 B.C. 60 (S-112), is not made clear (Borden 1961:
1). (Microblades)
As Table 1 indicates, date estimates for assemblages, including microblades or cores, range from 1210 B.C. 2 130 (GSC437) as the earliest to A.D. 370 f 140 (S-19) as the most recent.(Microblades)

New World are in the far north and Mesoamerica. The Northwest
Microblade tradition is estimated by MacNeish (Willey 1966: 415) to have begun about 6000 B.C. The Arctic Small Tool tradition, starting at 4000-3000 B.c., spread from Alaska to Greenland and lasted until about 500 B.C. In Mesoamerica, the Tehuacin Valley sequence showed obsidian blades struck from prepared polyhedral cores in the Abejas phase, dated by MacNeish
(1962) at 3400-2300 B.C. Willey (1966: 83) states "this common little instrument was to become one of the most persistent of the Mesoamerican
technological traditions." In view of the probable advenr of other Mesoamerican
traits into the Mississippi Valley in Poverty Point times, a Mesoamerican origin for the microflint industry seemq appropriate. One can only conjecture why this tool maintained its popularity only through Poverty Point and Hopewell times.
(poverty Point)

Vince, you have not demonstrated to me Lake Superior copper trade down the Mississippi River at 3,000 BC. No way points. If I had of found it, I would have written it up.

I mentioned to you earlier what I did find. I traced the copper trade and copper traders in my book "Man and Impact in the Americas", and gave some of the peoples' proto-historical and historical memories of them.

The gross diagnostics are polished stone tools and serated edges.

I now know more about why you think Burrow's objects are legitimate, at least on a superficial and not a deep level, but more importantly I know much more about how you think that, and how you manage to continue to think that.

You have not convinced me that there was a Norse-Algonquin copper trading empire running down the Mississippi River and carrying copper to Europe.

Vince, I'm very very tired, and they are not paying me enough. The usual rates for this kind of work are around $125 per hour, unless you can find a willing and very kind professor and are willing to pick up the tab for the sherry. $125/hr is roughly double the dollar per minute rate of some other trades... but my mind is wandering.

Vince, may I suggest to you that you make a VERY generous donation to the NAFPS committee to help them pay the operating costs of this forum?

In closing this exchange, I so want to thank you for your note of the Piqua gorgets. Now if someone would only come through with several tens of thousands of dollars, I would undertake learning the fates of the Lenape mede.
Or add three fires materials, including the tradition of the shells to "Man and Impact in the Americas".

Vince, perhaps someone you will meet will know where John Moss is buried.

My offer to Oestreicher for a trade still stands.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 03:04:06 pm by E.P. Grondine »

BuboAhab

  • Guest
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #326 on: August 13, 2009, 02:48:21 am »
Your assumptions are very troublesome.  The only time that I have heard Lori was when she gave that presentation to the Cahokia Mounds. She stated that she tested the copper and confirmed it was from upper Michigan.

I stated clearly that the Welch Butterfly cast was photographed at the museum.
"A plaster cast of the “Welch Butterfly” was made and donated at some time to the Smithsonian Institute, where the cast (Figure 2) was photographed by your author during a collections tour with David Rosenthal."

"Again, Vince, the route lines are yours - it may be Hudson's artifacts, but they're your lines. The problem is that you have to show how any of your routes matches the chronicles' itineraries. "
Wrong again, the pink line is Hudson's line, green is Brain, red is swanton Yellow is Weinstein, and Blue is Atkinson. See the source: The Mississippi De Soto Trail Mapping Project by David Morgan.

Eds source is Cahokia and the Hinterlands - which mentions nothing of microblades found at Cahokia, for one. Nor does it mention any of the archaic evidence. That is because this source is limited to the "mississippian" paradigm.

" Note carefully the 4,000 year time difference between Cahokia and Central Asian sites."
This is one point that I disagree with Ed. His view of selecting the time frame from "1000 years ago" is partial and simply ignoring all the evidence from earlier and later peoples seems bizarre.

Offline E.P. Grondine

  • Posts: 401
    • Man and Impact in the Americas
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #327 on: August 18, 2009, 05:45:47 am »
Your assumptions are very troublesome.

Not half as troubling as your Norse-Algonquin cognates, your imaginary copper trade routes, your endorsing frauds as real, and your cave "investigations".

The only time that I have heard Lori was when she gave that presentation to the Cahokia Mounds.

Does Lori endorse any of your conclusions at all, Vince?

She stated that she tested the copper and confirmed it was from upper Michigan.

That information was not in her presentation which you linked to.

I stated clearly that the Welch Butterfly cast was photographed at the museum."A plaster cast of the “Welch Butterfly” was made and donated at some time to the Smithsonian Institute, where the cast (Figure 2) was photographed by your author during a collections tour with David Rosenthal."

Which doesn't matter. The Welch butterfly is still a fake; perhaps someone will bother to examine the cast and prove it conclusively before more damage is done to impressionable minds.

"Again, Vince, the route lines are yours - it may be Hudson's artifacts, but they're your lines. The problem is that you have to show how any of your routes matches the chronicles' itineraries. "
Wrong again, the pink line is Hudson's line, green is Brain, red is swanton Yellow is Weinstein, and Blue is Atkinson. See the source: The Mississippi De Soto Trail Mapping Project by David Morgan.

Since Hudson et al do not have deSoto going anywhere near Cahokia, I am still left to wonder how you imagine that they do.

Eds source is Cahokia and the Hinterlands - which mentions nothing of microblades found at Cahokia, for one. Nor does it mention any of the archaic evidence. That is because this source is limited to the "mississippian" paradigm.

" Note carefully the 4,000 year time difference between Cahokia and Central Asian sites."
This is one point that I disagree with Ed. His view of selecting the time frame from "1000 years ago" is partial and simply ignoring all the evidence from earlier and later peoples seems bizarre.

I am not ignoring evidence from earlier or later peoples. I also don't confuse them by ignoring stratigraphy and dating, which is something you regularly and consistently do.

You show no way points demonstrating a trans-atlantic copper trade down the Mississippi River, Vince. Once more, if it had of been there I would have mentioned it.

The Burrows frauds will be addressed on that thread. Except for the Piqua gorgets, all of this more properly belongs there, rather than here.

I still wonder if the Indian Crafts Act may apply to Burrow's objects. I am very hopeful that Obama's new appointees to the BIA will bring an end to it.

« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 06:51:13 am by E.P. Grondine »

BuboAhab

  • Guest
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #328 on: August 19, 2009, 03:47:58 am »
1. Norse - Algonquian cognates were covered by Sherwin.
2. Read the copper trade routes in Lori's Presentation on page 2, then see poverty point, Wulfing plates, copper plates, etc.
3. Ed's opinion of "frauds" is based on no factual evidence.
4. Geological Caves in southern Illinois were far more common that Ed would have us know.
5. Welch Butterfly is authentic. And someone will probably take another close look at the cast of the relic and prove its importance as a colonial Mayan engraving, just as I have done.
6. Hudson's map is far from complete. Did De Soto have a GPS device, Ed?
7. Ignoring evidence seems to be the trend here, and as this thread has devolved into No-its-not, Yes-it-is, We should leave it at that.



Offline E.P. Grondine

  • Posts: 401
    • Man and Impact in the Americas
Re: The Red Record
« Reply #329 on: August 19, 2009, 09:45:38 pm »
1. Norse - Algonquian cognates were covered by Sherwin.
2. Read the copper trade routes in Lori's Presentation on page 2, then see poverty point, Wulfing plates, copper plates, etc.
3. Ed's opinion of "frauds" is based on no factual evidence.
4. Geological Caves in southern Illinois were far more common that Ed would have us know.
5. Welch Butterfly is authentic. And someone will probably take another close look at the cast of the relic and prove its importance as a colonial Mayan engraving, just as I have done.
6. Hudson's map is far from complete. Did De Soto have a GPS device, Ed?
7. Ignoring evidence seems to be the trend here, and as this thread has devolved into No-its-not, Yes-it-is, We should leave it at that.

And now we get down to it. Speaking of ignoring evidence, over on the Burrow's Cave fraud, Vince.